All-atom protein-ligand co-folding offers a route to modelling biomolecular complexes without prespecifying the receptor conformation or binding site, but its reliability for large, state-dependent membrane proteins remains uncertain. Here, we established a training-cut-off-aware benchmark of experimentally resolved ligand-bound complexes of voltage-gated sodium (Nav), calcium (Cav) and potassium (Kv) channels to evaluate AlphaFold 3, Boltz-2 and Protenix-v2 across multiple ligand representations. The final production set comprised 301 completed method-input jobs and 7,525 predicted structures generated from RCSB/CACTVS SMILES, Protein Data Bank Chemical Component Dictionary identifiers and matched PubChem and ChEMBL representations. Executable coverage differed markedly among methods, particularly for Kv-family systems, necessitating restriction of the balanced pose-accuracy comparison to 22 Nav and Cav complexes completed by all three methods. Median top-ranked ligand heavy-atom root-mean-square deviations were 19.85 Å for AlphaFold 3, 22.12 Å for Boltz-2 and 20.25 Å for Protenix-v2. Best-of-25 selection improved pose accuracy, but recovered a ligand pose within 5 Å of the experimental reference in only two, three and three systems, respectively, indicating that insufficient sampling was the predominant limitation, with ranking errors contributing to a smaller subset. Same-pocket recovery remained below 50% for all methods, despite broad preservation of receptor architecture, and method-native confidence measures showed limited discrimination of ligand-pose accuracy. Alternative ligand representations produced small aggregate changes but substantial system-specific effects on execution, pose category and ranking. Approximate close-contact screening identified additional geometric concerns in a subset of predictions. Collectively, these results show that current co-folding methods remain unreliable as stand-alone predictors of ion-channel ligand-binding modes and highlight pose sampling, pocket selection, ligand representation and independent structural validation as priorities for methodological development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: